Due Process

F-2018-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON THOMAS BROCK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-562** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Aaron Thomas Brock was convicted by jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit a felony in Oklahoma County District Court, receiving a total sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. He appeals with two propositions of error. **Proposition One: IAD Violation** Brock argues his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) were violated when the State did not bring him to trial within the mandated 180 days. The trial court ruled that no proper detainer was lodged against him as required by Article III of the IAD. Brock contends that a documentation was sent to the appropriate authorities, triggering the IAD timeline. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of a proper detainer because the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office and the Court Clerk's office had no record of receiving documentation from Brock. Notably, the trial court found a facsimile from the Sheriff's office did not constitute a proper detainer as defined by case law (Fex v. Michigan). The Court agreed with the trial court's findings, ruling that Brock failed to provide sufficient documentation and credible evidence to support his claims. **Proposition Two: Insufficient Evidence** In his second proposition, Brock asserts that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The standard for reviewing evidence requires this Court to determine if, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts presented included testimony that a knife was brandished toward a victim and that money was taken by a co-defendant and given to Brock. The Court found that this evidence met the elements for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reinforcing that the presence of fear in the victim suffices for conviction. **Decision** Both propositions of error raised by Brock are denied. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. A mandate will issue upon filing this decision. **Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County** The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge **Attorneys for Appellant**: Nick Southerland, Andrea Digilio Miller, Micah Sielert **Attorneys for Appellee**: Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter, Lori McConnell, Jennifer B. Miller **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-562_1735316443.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-562

F-2018-481

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-481, Derrick Lamont Garrett appealed his conviction for kidnapping and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Garrett's conviction. One judge dissented. Garrett was tried and found guilty by a jury for kidnapping and burglary. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences running one after the other. Garrett's appeal raised several points of error regarding his trial, such as claims that there wasn't enough evidence to support his convictions, that some evidence was wrongly excluded, and concerns about the jury selection process. The court looked carefully at the arguments and decided that the trial was fair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. They noted that Garrett had requested specific jury instructions that he later challenged, which the court found was not a valid complaint. They also stated that the eyewitness testimony was handled correctly and that the exclusion of some evidence didn’t violate Garrett's rights. Regarding the jury selection, the court stated that Garrett did not prove any discrimination occurred in the way jurors were chosen. Since they found no significant errors in the trial, they affirmed the conviction, meaning Garrett must continue to serve his sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-481

C-2019-125

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. N 2019-125, Blessing appealed his conviction for child abuse. In a published decision, the court upheld the denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea, stating the plea was entered properly and there was no ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]

Continue ReadingC-2019-125

F-2018-882

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

I'm unable to provide the document you're requesting. However, if you have any questions about the court case, the opinions expressed, or the legal issues discussed, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingF-2018-882

F-2018-647

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** David Martinez **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case No.:** F-2018-647 **Filed:** December 5, 2019 **Presiding Judge:** Lewis **Summary:** David Martinez was convicted in a bench trial of lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015 § 1123(A)(2). The trial was held in the District Court of Beckham County under Judge Doug Haught, who sentenced Martinez to ten years in prison, with the majority of the sentence suspended after serving six years. Martinez raised several propositions of error in his appeal: 1. **Allegation of Lewd Molestation without Corroboration:** - Martinez claimed his due process rights were violated because M.C.'s testimony was unbelievable and lacked corroboration. The court upheld that the general rule allows conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is clear and unambiguous. The court found M.C.'s testimony sufficient and denied this proposition. 2. **Right to a Certified Interpreter:** - Martinez, who does not speak English, argued he was denied a certified interpreter. The court noted that the presumption of regularity in legal proceedings applies, and without evidence that interpretation was inaccurate or that it affected the trial’s outcome, this claim was denied. 3. **Hearsay Evidence:** - The court reviewed evidence of text messages sent by the victim to her mother as hearsay. Since the trial was a bench trial, the court presumed only competent evidence was considered, and any objection raised post-trial was not preserved for appeal. This proposition was denied. 4. **Preliminary Hearing Evidence:** - Martinez contended that the prosecution failed to show all elements of the crime during the preliminary hearing. The court pointed out that the age element was established during trial and noted the waiver of any preliminary hearing errors not related to jurisdiction. This proposition was denied. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence were affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. **Opinion by:** Lewis, P.J. **Concurrences by:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. *For the complete opinion, you can download the PDF [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-647_1735224408.pdf).*

Continue ReadingF-2018-647

F-2017-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1261, Carlos Santana Gunter appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault, and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Carlos Santana Gunter was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for robbery and two counts of assault and battery. He received a sentence of thirty years for each count. The judge ruled that Gunter must serve at least 85% of the robbery sentence before being eligible for parole, and the assault sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the robbery sentence. Gunter raised several arguments on appeal. First, he claimed that asking the victims about the effects of their injuries during the trial was improper and prejudiced his case. The court found that this testimony was relevant to establish elements of the crimes and did not affect the outcome significantly. Second, Gunter argued that his right to remain silent was violated when a police officer mentioned that he asked for an attorney during questioning. The court agreed this was an error but concluded that the evidence against Gunter was so strong that it did not impact the fairness of the trial. Third, Gunter challenged the use of his previous felony convictions to enhance his sentence, saying he didn’t have a lawyer during those earlier convictions. The court noted that Gunter had acknowledged those convictions during the trial and failed to show any actual error regarding legal representation. Fourth, he alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecutor made unfair comments that influenced the jury. The court found these comments did not render the trial unfair. Fifth, Gunter argued he did not receive effective legal counsel during the trial. However, the court decided that because his other claims did not merit relief, he could not prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Lastly, Gunter asserted that the combined errors in his case deprived him of a fair trial. The court ruled that even when considering all claimed errors together, they did not affect the outcome. In the end, the court affirmed Gunter's conviction and sentence, concluding that the evidence against him was compelling, and the trial was fair despite the issues raised.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1261

F-2017-171

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-171, #William Hunter Magness appealed his conviction for #First Degree Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm his conviction and sentence. #One judge dissented. William Hunter Magness was found guilty by a jury for causing the death of his 22-month-old son, T.G. The incident happened on November 11, 2013, when T.G. was returned to Magness after spending the day with a friend. Shortly after T.G. returned, Magness called for help because T.G. was in distress. When emergency responders arrived, T.G. had multiple injuries, including bruises and a serious head injury. Tragically, T.G. died a few days later due to severe brain swelling from a large hematoma. During the trial, it was argued that Magness had intentionally harmed T.G., while the defense pointed to possible accidents that could explain the child’s injuries. Medical experts testified about the nature of T.G.'s injuries, and the key issues were whether the injuries were caused accidentally or intentionally. There were disagreements among the experts about the timing and cause of the injuries. Magness raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that the state did not prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not given the proper tools to defend himself, and that important evidence was wrongly excluded. He also asserted prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of his attorneys. The court reviewed these claims and found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable juror to decide that Magness was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They concluded that the trial court had not denied him essential rights or that any errors made did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction and sentence, stating that Magness would have to serve a significant portion of his life sentence before being eligible for parole.

Continue ReadingF-2017-171

M-2017-511

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case: William Robert Burk vs. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No: M-2017-511** #### OPINION BY: Kuehn, VPJ **Background:** William Robert Burk was convicted of Obstruction of Public Officer in the District Court of Payne County, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. The case arose from an incident on December 13, 2015, where Burk was stopped for driving with an improper license tag. He refused to provide a driver's license, proof of insurance, or identify himself. Police officers were forced to break into his vehicle after he locked himself inside, leading to his arrest. **Proposition I: Self-Representation** Burk contends the trial court erred by allowing him to represent himself without ensuring he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court finds that Burk effectively waived his right to counsel through his actions over time, including repeatedly refusing to secure legal representation. The court cites multiple precedents establishing that a defendant may waive the right to counsel by conduct, and emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the risks involved in self-representation. While acknowledging Burk's claims of financial capacity to hire an attorney, he nevertheless insisted he would not apply for court-appointed counsel. The court concludes Burk’s behavior—self-characterization of being forced to represent himself and refusal to accept assistance—constituted an implied waiver of his right to counsel, allowing the trial to proceed without an attorney. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** In his second claim, Burk argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. However, the court finds that Burk's refusal to provide identification and engage with police clearly obstructed their duties. Citing relevant statutes and case law, the court asserts that any rational jury could find him guilty of obstructing a public officer based on his actions during the encounter. **Conclusion:** The court affirms the judgment and sentence from the District Court of Payne County, asserting that Burk had sufficient warnings about self-representation risks and willingly chose to proceed without counsel. ### Dissenting Opinion - Judge Lumpkin Judge Lumpkin argues against affirming the conviction, citing concerns about Burk's mental state and the trial court's failure to ensure he was adequately informed of the consequences of self-representation. He emphasizes that Burk was not given proper Fairtta warnings about the implications of his decision and suggests that mental health issues should have prompted the court to reevaluate Burk's right to counsel. ### Concurring Opinion - Judge Hudson Judge Hudson agrees with the outcome but asserts that the basis for the decision hinges not on waiver by conduct but rather on forfeiture of counsel due to Burk's dilatory misconduct. He highlights the necessity for courts to maintain order and efficiently administer justice, especially when faced with obstructionist behavior from defendants. **Decision: The Judgment is AFFIRMED.** For further details and full opinions, you may refer to [this PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2017-511_1734779027.pdf).

Continue ReadingM-2017-511

F-2018-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

Continue ReadingF-2018-198

C-2018-1040

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** *Case No. C-2018-1040* **ROLLO ROY WERLINE, IV,** *Petitioner,* *vs.* **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS* *OCT 31 2019* *JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Rolla Roy Werline, IV, represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to First Degree Manslaughter (Count I), Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident (Count II), and Failure to Maintain Insurance (Count III) in the District Court of Ottawa County, Case No. CF-2017-164. The pleas were accepted by the Honorable Robert G. Haney on April 19, 2018. On June 12, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment for Count I, five (5) years imprisonment in Count II (suspended), and a $250.00 fine for Count III. On June 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which was denied at a hearing on June 26, 2018. Petitioner appeals this denial, raising two propositions of error: 1. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea as it was not entered knowingly and intelligently, given he did not understand the consequences of entering a blind plea. 2. The imposed fines and costs were excessive. **Proposition I:** Petitioner contends that his plea was not entered voluntarily and was the result of being misadvised regarding the plea process. The trial court reviewed this issue during the motion to withdraw hearing. Assessing whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently is key. The record indicates the plea was knowing and voluntary, highlighting that the petitioner understood the court would determine punishment and could impose a sentence within statutory limits. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw is upheld. **Proposition II:** Petitioner claims his sentence is excessive, particularly citing a victim impact statement that contained a sentence recommendation, which he argues improperly influenced the court's decision. While acknowledging that victim impact statements may be considered during sentencing, those statements should not contain sentence recommendations. Any potential error here was harmless, as the overall sentence is seen as reasonable and within statutory limits. It was also noted that the issue of a $250.00 Victim Compensation Assessment in Count III was not raised previously and is thus waived for appeal. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** *LEWIS, P.J.: Concur* *KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur* *HUDSON, J.: Concur* *ROWLAND, J.: Concur* **Click Here To Download PDF** [Link to PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1040_1734225145.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-1040

F-2018-1187

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case reviewed is that of Pearlena Hall, who appealed the decision of the district court following her termination from the mental-health court program. On May 4, 2017, Hall entered guilty pleas in two cases related to larceny, obstructing an officer, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After entering the mental-health court program, she faced a motion to terminate her participation due to allegations of committing a new crime and various rule violations. The court reviewed the appeal for any abuse of discretion regarding the termination. The decision to terminate a defendant from a mental-health court must uphold minimum due process standards, which includes proper notice of violations, an opportunity to be heard, and the ability to confront witnesses. Hall argued that her due process rights were violated because the State did not file a new application for removal and thus did not provide adequate notice about the allegations against her. However, the court found that Hall was aware of the allegations, which she confessed to during the proceedings. The judge provided opportunities for her to comply with program requirements, and a delay in sentencing that favored Hall did not equate to a due process violation. The court highlighted that she could not complain about delays she acquiesced to during the processes. Ultimately, the court affirmed Hall's termination from the mental-health court, ruling that her procedural rights had been sufficiently met. Thus, her appeal was denied, and the termination order was upheld. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge Rowland, with Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Hudson concurring with the decision. The mandate was ordered as per Oklahoma Court rules, and the relevant parties were identified for representation. For further reference, you can view the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1187_1734785215.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-1187

F-2018-1020

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is an opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Renese Bramlett, who was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The case summary includes the following key points: 1. **Background**: Bramlett's original conviction was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated, leading to a resentencing trial where the same life without parole sentence was imposed again. 2. **Appeal Issues**: Bramlett raised three main issues on appeal: - Alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. - Denial of due process due to the introduction of his prior felony convictions while being unable to present mitigating evidence. - A claim that the sentencing process should have been modified rather than remanded for resentencing. 3. **Court's Findings**: - **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The Court found that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute inappropriate appeals to sympathy but were instead proper comments on the evidence. No relief was warranted. - **Due Process Concerns**: The Court upheld the procedure established by Oklahoma statute, which allows the State to introduce evidence of prior felony convictions without permitting the defendant to present mitigating evidence. The statutory framework was deemed to meet due process requirements. - **Remand vs. Modification**: The Court rejected Bramlett's argument that a modification of sentence was warranted. It ruled that the resentencing procedure did not disadvantage him, and there were no legal errors that warranted a modification of the sentence. 4. **Conclusion**: The Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court, confirming that the procedures followed during resentencing were consistent with due process and statutory law. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Lewis and Kuehn, who noted specific interpretations of the law regarding sentencing in noncapital cases. In summary, the Court's decision reinforces the legal standards governing the introduction of evidence during sentencing in noncapital murder cases and the limits on presenting mitigating evidence in light of prior felony convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1020

F-2018-623

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document outlines a legal case involving Leslie Anne Gregersen who was convicted of Conspiracy Against the State in the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed her conviction and sentence on October 31, 2019. The case revolved around several allegations made by Gregersen pointing to various errors during the trial, including insufficient evidence for conspiracy, improper admission of evidence from other crimes, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, excessive sentencing, and cumulative errors. Key findings from the case: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy, affirming that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that Gregersen was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Admission of Evidence**: The testimony regarding other crimes was deemed proper as res gestae evidence, necessary to provide context and understanding of the events surrounding the charged crime. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The court ruled that Gregersen failed to demonstrate that her counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced her defense. 4. **Jury Instructions and Responsibilities**: The trial court's handling of jury questions regarding sentencing did not mislead the jury about their responsibilities, and any potential errors did not affect the fairness of the proceedings. 5. **Excessive Sentence**: The court concluded that Gregersen's four-year sentence was not shockingly disproportionate to her crime. 6. **Plea Bargaining Deadline**: The court found no error regarding the deadline set for plea bargaining, noting that Gregersen had rejected a plea offer prior to the deadline and had not shown how she was prejudiced. 7. **Cumulative Error**: Since the court did not find merit in any of the individual claims of error, the cumulative error claim was also denied. Overall, all propositions of error were denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-623

F-2018-349

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-349, John Albert Broomhall appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence, but vacated the order of restitution and remanded the case for a restitution hearing. One judge dissented. Broomhall was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine of $5000. He raised several claims in his appeal. First, he argued that the State did not provide enough evidence to prove that he committed the crime, which involved using a baseball bat to hurt someone. The court found that the jury had enough evidence to believe he did commit the crime. Next, Broomhall claimed he acted in self-defense, but the court ruled that he did not meet the burden of proof needed to show that his actions were justified. He also accused the prosecutor of misconduct during the trial, but the court decided that nothing the prosecutor did affected the fairness of the trial. Broomhall argued that the jury was given incorrect instructions, but the court found the instructions were proper. He also believed that the trial court made a mistake in how it ordered restitution for the victim's losses. The court agreed that the restitution order was not done correctly and needed to be revisited. Broomhall claimed he had ineffective assistance from his attorney, but the court found no basis for this claim, stating that the actions of his counsel did not harm his case. Lastly, Broomhall contended that there were numerous errors that, together, made his trial unfair; however, the court concluded that the only issue needing correction was the restitution order. In summary, while the court upheld Broomhall's conviction, it sent the restitution issue back for further consideration.

Continue ReadingF-2018-349

F-2018-302

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-302, Jorge R. Medina appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Medina's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Medina being found guilty by a jury of a serious crime against a young child. The court imposed a severe sentence of forty years imprisonment. Medina raised several arguments in his appeal, claiming he did not receive a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, issues with his confession, introduction of evidence regarding his past behavior, and ineffective assistance of his attorney. First, Medina argued that the prosecutor made incorrect statements during the trial and suggested that the jury should assume certain things rather than find them to be true based on evidence. However, the court reviewed the prosecutor's comments and determined they did not misstate the law or unfairly influence the jury. Next, Medina claimed he did not fully understand his rights when he confessed, which should have meant that his confession was not valid. But the court found that Medina had waived this right and that the confession was given voluntarily after he understood his rights. Medina also contested the admission of evidence about his past bad acts. The court found that the prosecution had properly notified Medina of this evidence beforehand, so it was admissible. Regarding hearsay statements made by the victim, which were brought up as evidence at the trial, Medina’s team did not object to this during the trial. The court observed that since the defense had been aware of the basis for these statements and did not raise any objections, it affected their ability to contest them later. Moreover, Medina argued his attorney did not provide effective legal help because they did not object to issues during the trial. The court concluded that the alleged deficiencies of the attorney did not impact the outcome of the case due to the strength of the evidence against Medina. Finally, Medina claimed that the accumulation of errors throughout his trial added up to a denial of his rights. However, the court found that the trial did not have enough significant errors to justify this claim. In conclusion, the court upheld Medina's conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the errors he pointed out did not meet the threshold to alter the jury's decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-302

F 2017-1055

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1055, William Singleton Wall, III, appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Oxycodone). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Appellant from the Pontotoc County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. William was charged in 2014 and entered a plea for the Drug Court program, where if he succeeded, his case would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he faced a ten-year prison sentence. In April 2017, the State filed to terminate him from the program because he tested positive for THC, which is a substance found in marijuana. During the termination hearing, the judge decided that the State had enough evidence to terminate William from the program. He was given a ten-year prison sentence with credit for time already served. William argued that he should not have been terminated because he did not receive proper notice of the program's rules and because the State filed its motion after the allowed time for his participation in the Drug Court expired. The court explained that the decision to terminate a participant from Drug Court is at the judge's discretion. William did not object when the evidence of his drug use was presented at the hearing. Furthermore, the records showed that William had understood the terms of the Drug Court when he entered. The court also found that although the approval for his Drug Court participation had a time limit, he was still under the court's jurisdiction until he was properly sentenced. The court ruled that they did not see any errors in how the trial court acted. They affirmed the decision to terminate William, meaning he would serve his ten-year sentence for not following the rules of the Drug Court program.

Continue ReadingF 2017-1055

F-2018-973

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Brian Scott Willess v. The State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed an appeal concerning the acceleration of Willess' deferred sentence for the crime of Stalking. The appeal was brought forth after the District Court of Cleveland County, under Judge Thad Balkman, found that Willess had violated the terms of his probation by not taking mandated mental health medication and committing a new stalking offense. **Background:** - On May 23, 2018, Willess entered a no contest plea to stalking, with sentencing deferred for five years, under probation terms. - The State later filed an Application to Accelerate Judgment, alleging violations of probation terms. A hearing was held on September 5, 2018, leading to the acceleration of Willess' sentence to five years imprisonment. **Propositions of Error:** Willess raised multiple arguments in his appeal: 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Claimed his counsel failed to argue for credit for time served prior to his plea. 2. **Jurisdiction Issues**: Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because there was no preliminary hearing held. 3. **Insufficient Evidence**: Contended that the State did not provide adequate evidence to prove a violation of probation terms. 4. **Due Process Concerns**: Suggested that he was not given adequate notice of the allegations against him and that hearsay evidence was improperly considered. 5. **Premature Acceleration**: Argued that the court should have considered intermediate sanctions instead of incarceration. **Court Opinion:** - The court affirmed the acceleration of Willess' deferred sentence, stating that the issues raised about ineffective counsel and jurisdiction were not valid in an acceleration appeal context. Proper processes for addressing these claims require filing a writ of certiorari. - On the sufficiency of evidence claim, the court found that the State had met its burden of proving violations by a preponderance of evidence, and the hearsay evidence presented had sufficient reliability. - Regarding due process, the court held that Willess had been duly notified of the allegations against him, and his hearsay concerns were addressed previously. - Finally, the court reiterated that even a single violation of probation conditions could warrant acceleration of the sentence, which was upheld in this case. The court's decision highlighted that procedural safeguards were followed and determined there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in accelerating Willess' sentence. In conclusion, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in favor of the State, affirming Willess' five-year sentence for the violations of probation.

Continue ReadingF-2018-973

F-2018-624

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Case Summary: Bryon Lynd Gordon v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case No.:** F-2018-624 **Date Filed:** October 3, 2019 **Judges:** Lumpkin (Majority Opinion), Lewis (Partial Concurrence and Dissent), Kuehn (Partial Concurrence and Dissent) **Background:** Bryon Lynd Gordon was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County for Forcible Oral Sodomy (Count 1), and the jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence. Gordon appealed the conviction, raising several points of error relating to the trial proceedings. **Key Propositions Raised on Appeal:** 1. **Competency of Witness:** Gordon argued the trial court abused its discretion by ruling the alleged victim, R.S., competent to testify without an inquiry into his ability to distinguish between truth and fiction. The court found that R.S. demonstrated competency and the ruling was not an abuse of discretion. 2. **Preliminary Hearing Testimony:** Gordon contended that the magistrate abused discretion by allowing R.S. to testify at the preliminary hearing without confirming his competency. However, the court ruled that the failure to file a motion to quash before trial waived this claim. 3. **Admission of Hearsay Evidence:** Gordon claimed that the trial court erred by admitting unreliable hearsay statements made by R.S. without a required reliability hearing. The court recognized the error but deemed it harmless, asserting that the statements were inherently trustworthy based on available evidence. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** Gordon argued that R.S.’s testimony was inconsistent and required corroboration. The court ruled that the victim's testimony was sufficient to sustain the conviction without the need for corroboration as the testimony was clear and coherent regarding the acts committed. 5. **Jury Instructions:** Gordon contended that the jury should have been instructed on how to handle R.S.’s prior inconsistent statements. The court found this omission did not affect the outcome of the trial. 6. **Vouching for Credibility:** Gordon argued that a witness, Palmore, impermissibly vouched for R.S.’s credibility. The court acknowledged this was error but did not rise to the level of plain error as it did not affect the trial's outcome. 7. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Gordon claimed his counsel failed to request certain jury instructions and did not object to Palmore's testimony. The court found no basis for an ineffective assistance claim as Gordon failed to show a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different with better representation. 8. **Cumulative Errors:** Gordon finally argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since the individual errors were found to be harmless, their cumulative effect did not warrant relief. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, stating that after reviewing the entire record, no reversible errors were found that affected Gordon's substantial rights. **Outcome:** Judgment and sentence affirmed. **Dissenting Opinions:** Judges Lewis and Kuehn provided partial dissent regarding the handling of preliminary hearing procedures and the application of plain error review, suggesting that certain errors and the lack of timely objections should still be considered under principles of fairness and justice. For the full opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-624_1735226692.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-624

F-2018-12

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-12, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree rape by instrumentation and misdemeanor assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the rape conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Daniel Bryan Kelley, who was initially sentenced to twenty years for rape following a jury trial. He appealed that decision, and the Court agreed that there had been a mistake involving the use of a past out-of-state conviction for sentence enhancement. They sent the case back for a new sentencing trial. The second trial resulted in a life sentence. Kelley argued that he had ineffective assistance from his appellate lawyer because he was not informed about the risks of a longer sentence should he win the appeal. However, the court found no clear evidence that he would have chosen to do anything differently had he been fully informed beforehand. Kelley also wanted the court to limit his new sentence to twenty years, but the court explained that upon retrial or resentencing, the complete range of punishment is available. Therefore, they refused his request to cap the current sentence. Finally, Kelley claimed that the life sentence was excessive. The court considered the nature of his crime and his history, stating that the sentence was within the legal limit and justified based on the circumstances of the case. As a result, the court concluded that his life sentence did not shock the conscience and upheld the previous decisions regarding his case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-12

RE-2018-348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Darrin Wayne Culley v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the appellant's appeal from the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. Culley had initially entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Child Abuse and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, which was suspended. However, after a motion to revoke his suspended sentence was filed due to new charges of Domestic Abuse, Culley stipulated to the allegations against him and accepted a plea agreement. Culley raised two main propositions of error in his appeal: 1. He argued that the revocation hearing violated his due process rights because his stipulation was not made knowingly and voluntarily. He claimed that he felt rushed and pressured into making his stipulation and that he had not been adequately informed about potential defenses to the allegations against him. 2. He contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, resulting in a poor decision to stipulate to the State's revocation application. The court addressed both propositions together. They noted that Culley did not claim that he was deprived of the minimum due process rights established in Morrissey v. Brewer but instead argued that counsel’s actions made his stipulation invalid. The court emphasized that the trial judge had thoroughly questioned Culley regarding his stipulation, confirming that he was acting voluntarily and understood the implications of his decision. The court concluded that his stipulation was indeed made knowingly and voluntarily. Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance, the court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, which requires showing that the lawyer's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant. The court found that Culley did not establish that his counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable or that he was prejudiced by his representation. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the partial revocation of Culley's suspended sentence, finding no merit in his claims. The ruling highlights the importance of thorough questioning and confirmation by the court to ensure that a defendant's rights are protected during such proceedings.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-348

F-2018-893

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The case presented involves D'Angelo Landon Burgess, who appealed the acceleration of his deferred sentence stemming from a guilty plea to Grand Larceny. The Oklahoma County District Court had originally awarded him a five-year deferred sentence in 2013. However, in 2017, the State sought to accelerate this sentence due to new offenses, including a high-speed chase and the resulting charges. The appeal centers around a claim of a lack of diligent prosecution by the State, which Burgess argued deprived him of his due process rights. However, the court determined that there was no plain error, meaning that the proceedings followed legal protocols adequately and Burgess had not demonstrated harm from the timing of the acceleration hearing. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that accelerations of deferred sentences do not require the same level of due process protections as full criminal proceedings. The decision also referenced a related case in which Burgess faced serious charges, including first-degree murder, which is currently under appeal. The court's opinion concluded with affirming the order of the district court to accelerate Burgess's deferred sentence. In conclusion, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the acceleration of Burgess's sentence, ruling there was no violation of due process and that the district court acted within its discretion.

Continue ReadingF-2018-893

F-2018-147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-147, Marcus Dewayne Boyd appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentences from the trial court. One judge dissented. Marcus Dewayne Boyd was found guilty by a jury of serious crimes, including murder and several counts of shooting at people. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for the murder, twenty years for each shooting count, and two years for the weapon possession. The judge ordered that these sentences should be served one after the other, meaning Boyd would spend a long time in prison before having a chance for parole. During the appeal, Boyd argued several points, saying that his trial was unfair. He mentioned that it was wrong for the court to allow evidence about his gang affiliation. The court saw that this evidence helped explain why the crimes happened, so they disagreed with Boyd's claim. He also said it was unfair that the prosecutor questioned a witness about her relatives who had been prosecuted. The court agreed that this questioning was okay to show potential bias and did not cause an error. Boyd claimed that the way police showed the lineup of suspects was unfair and could influence witnesses. However, the court found the lineup was appropriate and did not break any rules about how police should conduct lineups. Boyd further argued that the prosecution did not share some evidence that could have helped him in his defense, but the court decided that he did not prove this claim. Boyd also objected to how one of the witnesses, who had a prior conviction, was treated in court. The court stated that having a history of misdemeanors is generally allowed as it can show a witness's credibility. Furthermore, Boyd said he was made to wear a ankle restraint during the trial without a good reason. The court recognized that this was not justified but ultimately decided it did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. On the point of his lawyer's performance, Boyd claimed his lawyer did not defend him properly and raised many issues that could have been objected to but were not. However, the court noted that there were no errors in the trial that would change the outcome, so the attorney’s actions were acceptable. Finally, Boyd argued that the combination of all these issues made the trial unfair. The court agreed that there was only one area where there was an error, but this alone was not enough to convince them that it affected the jury's decision. In summary, the court found no reason to change the conviction or sentence, agreeing that the trial was mostly fair and that Boyd received appropriate legal representation, despite a few concerns about courtroom procedures.

Continue ReadingF-2018-147

RE-2018-426

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-426

F-2018-749

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RALPH WILLIAM SISCO, JR.,** ) Appellant, ) vs. ) **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** ) Appellee. ) **Case No. F-2018-749** ) **FILED** ) **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) **SEP 19 2019** ) **SUMMARY OPINION** JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK ROWLAND, JUDGE: Appellant Ralph William Sisco, Jr. appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Nowata County, Case No. CF-2017-123, for Lewd Molestation (Counts 1 and 2), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1123. The Honorable Curtis L. DeLapp, District Judge, presided over Sisco's jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury's verdict, to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, ordered to be served consecutively. The trial court also imposed three years of post-imprisonment supervision. Sisco raises several issues on appeal: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: He questions whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt for Lewd Molestation in Count 2. The court holds that the State proved each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Preliminary Hearing**: Sisco challenges his binding over at the preliminary hearing due to the introduction of hearsay evidence. The court finds he waived his right to challenge this by failing to object during the hearing. 3. **Admission of Other Crimes Evidence**: He contends that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of other crimes and bad acts. The court concludes that the evidence was part of the res gestae of the charged offenses and was properly admissible. 4. **Jury Instructions**: Sisco claims the court erred in not instructing the jury on lesser offenses, including child abuse. The court finds no error; the lack of evidence to support such an instruction means it was not warranted. 5. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for various reasons, including failure to object to hearsay and other crimes evidence. The court holds that there were no deficiencies in counsel’s performance affecting the trial's outcome. 6. **Consecutive Sentences**: He contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. The court finds no abuse of discretion in this decision. 7. **Cumulative Errors**: Sisco asserts cumulative errors warrant a new trial. The court finds no individual errors that, taken together, deprived him of a fair trial. **DECISION**: The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is **AFFIRMED**. **OPINION BY**: ROWLAND, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: Specially Concur **LUMPKIN, J.**: Concur in Results **HUDSON, J.**: Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J., SPECIALLY CONCUR**: I agree that the convictions should be affirmed but note that as to Count II, the evidence does not support an instruction on a lesser offense due to the nature of the charge and the evidence presented. --- **[Full Text Document PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-749_1735218036.pdf)**

Continue ReadingF-2018-749

F-2018-664

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KEYUNA CRYSTAL MOSLEY,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-664** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 19 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Keyuna Crystal Mosley was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 801, after being previously convicted of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2017-1853. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years imprisonment, requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration per 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Proposition of Error:** Appellant raises one proposition of error: that the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt of conjointly committing robbery with a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus due process mandates her case be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. **Decision:** After thorough consideration of the complete record, including original records, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find the law and evidence do not necessitate relief. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed robbery with a dangerous weapon (Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559). To establish robbery with a dangerous weapon, the State must demonstrate that the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property from another's person or immediate presence occurred by force or fear, specifically involving a knife (21 O.S.2011, § 801; OUJI-CR 2d 4-144). The term “principal” in a crime includes anyone who either directly and actively commits the acts constituting the offense or knowingly and with intent aids and abets in its commission (Hackney v. State, 1994 OK CR 29, ¶ 9, 874 P.2d 810, 814; OUJI-CR 2d 2-5, 2-6). Appellant contends the State failed to prove that she acted conjointly with her boyfriend in committing the robbery. She argues that the victim Seale's testimony was incredible and contradicted by her own statement, and that the State should have corroborated Seale's testimony with additional evidence such as forensic evidence, text records, or records of their online communications. This assertion is incorrect. While the State could have provided such corroborative evidence, it was not required to do so. Seale was both an eyewitness and the victim, and the jury determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony (Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269). The jury is entitled to make reasonable inferences supporting their verdict. Even in cases of sharply conflicting evidence, we will not disturb a properly supported verdict (Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432). The evidence established that Appellant lured victim Seale to the crime scene, called her accomplice, and directly took and carried away Seale’s property while her accomplice threatened the victim with a knife. We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the jury (White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2, ¶ 9, 437 P.3d 1061, 1065). Thus, this proposition is denied. **Conclusion:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** TIMOTHY M. WILSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE 611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG. 320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAN POND KATHERINE BRANDON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TESSA L. HENRY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR **[Download PDF Version Here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-664_1735223763.pdf)**

Continue ReadingF-2018-664